Anywhere in the world, if Ahmadis have a homeland and somebody else had captured it before, this was at no fault of theirs, if the Ahmadis gain a considerable number in that country, they don’t have to fight for the freedom. The rulers would willy-nilly evacuate that country. Why? I am going to explain that with reference to one of the answers given by Hazrat Musleh Maud to a questioner like you, in my presence.
Once I think it was Gandhi, late Mahatma Gandhi, who sent an emissary to Hazrat Musleh Maud and he posed some questions. In fact he came to advise him against his position in favour of Pakistan and I don’t remember exactly who he was, but he stressed that your stance vis-a-vis the division of India is going to be very detrimental, you will have to pay through your nose the folly of this attitude because the country you are opting for is going to turn against you. That was one of the fundamental, central reason why that emissary came to Hazrat Musleh Maud. And in that course he also started asking a few concomitant questions and this was one of the questions, I remember the way he put it. He said that there are people in the world who get their rights through violence and if their homelands are captured and occupied by enemy forces, they believe in violence whether they succeed or not, at least they make a genuine effort to liberate themselves.
And there are people who do not believe in violence, like Mahatma Gandhi, but they believe in non-cooperation and that is also a weapon and in certain situations that is a more potent weapon, more lasting weapon for a weaker people, because in case of violence if your resistance is overpowered, then your will is broken as well. But in passive resistance of a weak people, there is no question of breaking your will, you become a pain in the neck for the oppressor and you continue teasing him out of his nerves and the result is that ultimately he has to vacate. After saying that, he said, what is your position?
If you were to lead India, would you opt for perpetual slavery of British India to the British? What is your instrument? I was really surprised, I said, I was wondering how Hazrat Musleh Maud would be able to wriggle out of this difficult situation, he was very calm, he said yes, no problem, he said the fact is that you don’t know the basics of conquering other lands, people are not mad to go to other lands and take the trouble of administering that land and establishing rule of law and things, why? The only interest is economic, exploitation and that exploitation is always linked with moral corruption.
If a people are intact morally, they can never be exploited, now when he said that still the questioner couldn’t follow what he was coming to, then he explained further, he said if you say, if all the India were Ahmadis and you were the leader, as Musleh Maud said, if there are just two crore Ahmadis in India, the British would have to look at it, we can tease them out, being loyal to them, we can think of ways and means and it would all base on one single fact that we have moral integrity, follower of one voice, woven round one central theme and this is such a strength that with wisdom and prudence when employed without breaking a law, it can become an awesome force. He said look at Qadian, there is no need for police, they look like foreigners in this place, they don’t have to interfere because our moral fibre is strong enough and they don’t find such criminals to interfere and there is no room for their interference.
So one of the symbols of rule is policing, so that is not here, then you, the entire India feeds the British industry because the industry is based there and you are the markets and you indulge in luxuries and you are bound to live in such luxuries as are imposed upon you through a systematic effort of the British. They give you new things, they create your tastes and those acquired tastes must demand some continuous supply from that land.
So this is how you are exploited, he said when I’ll tell Ahmadis to eat just one roti and one salan for instance and wear only the local made things or weave things for themselves, he said if I stop them from riding cars they would stop, they wouldn’t mind. He said with intelligence I can think and devise a means which would make the British government bow down to our will and ultimately find it meaningless and senseless to remain in a country where the people have moral integrity. Now what he said, he proved later on through his actions.
What happened in the case of Kashmir movement? What happened in the case of Shudhi movement? Now in Kashmir movement there was exactly a similar situation, a ruler oppressed the rights of a people who were led for the time being by Hazrat Musleh Maud and the task was so great that a state which has the blessing of the majority population of India and the wealthiest population of India and also the backing of the government, the British Raj, that was very obvious to him, I mean this can be proved by historic facts. You with a small community who would meet with non-cooperation from all sides even by Muslims, you go and fight for the rights of the oppressed Muslims in Kashmir.
Did he not carry this task to completion and to success? How? Not by breaking laws, but by devising ways and means, so many things. Human is armed with wisdom and integrity of character, if these two weapons are available to a man, they can be employed very successfully in bringing about favourable changes. So liberty begins with the character, emancipation is the emancipation of soul to begin with. Once a people have achieved it, it becomes meaningless for other people to rule them.
